No War In The Middle East Worth Winning Will Take Less Than 100 Years

Krauthammer complains that the liberal media has twisted John McCain's statement that the United States may need to keep provisional forces in Iraq for 100 years into a statement that John McCain wants to fight in Iraq for 100 years.

I responded:

I agree with you that the Democrats tried to turn McCain's statement about 100 years of ancillary U.S. presence in Iraq into 100 years of War, but --

If John McCain does not expect us to be actively fighting in the Middle East for the next 100 years, then what definition of "winning the war" is he working with?

Another way to state the same question:

How long does McCain (or even you) think it will take to reach the "win" he (or you) seek(s)? If that win takes less than 100 years to achieve, is it really a win worth the fight?

And the ancillary question:

How does McCain propose to staff the war with soldiers and to pay for the war financially while still maintaining the moral system he is so keen on defending?

The War in Iraq is not enough without the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iran, the War in Pakistan, the solution to the Middle East conflict, and perhaps, the solution of the energy crisis. The United States is not just in Iraq, now, we are in the Middle East. We cannot leave the Middle East with a "win" unless we win everywhere

I propose this "win"

We can not leave the Middle East until the earlier of the time when (a) there is no risk of occupation of anti-United States forces in Iraq and Saudi Arabia (which includes not only Iran, Syria and/or Turkey, but also Russia and China and whatever surrogates they engage) or (b) we are energy self-sufficient in a manner that does not harm our environment (at which point we can leave the Middle East and let the devil take the hind most).

I say that win could take 100 years of real war. It is worth the fight. If John McCain, of all people, has no stomach to commit to that, then maybe he should look for the fastest way out.

You Can't Spell Obama without a Big O (Part 1)

I have long said I support Hillary. I agree with her on the issues, and I particularly agree with her on issues where she differs with Obama. 5 in particular -- the War, Education, Health Care, the Environment and Social Security.

On two of those issues -- the Environment and Social Security, I think we will discover that Obama is not only to the right of Hillary Clinton, but to the right of John McCain.

On the environment, and global warming, and that set of issues, it is even possible that Obama is to the right of George W. Bush.

On education, I am married to a teacher, my cousins are teachers, my brother-in-law and sister-in-law are teachers, I have relatives who are school psychologists, and on and on -- so I have a vested interest in it. I will save for another day my substantive arguments about why I think the "blame the teachers union for our failures in education" argument is a lot of hooey.

Suffice it to say, that on Social Security and Education and Health Insurance, Obama has been spouting the conservative Republican line since he was an embryo.

On the War, I believe Hillary's Senate record has been right, and that Obama's has been wrong. It is true -- as Bubba tried to say, but surprisingly quite didn't know how to -- that both Senators have misstated their records throughout the campaign.

It doesn't matter.

Hillary will not take the political hit required to leave Iraq. She will be able to say that the circumstances in 2009 are different from the circumstances now. During a war, circumstances are changing all the time.

Obama has continually said that "I want us to be as careful getting out, as we were careless getting in." Not the sign of a man planning on leaving Iraq anytime soon. Plus, of course, Obama has not ruled out going into Pakistan. President Bush has made a point to mention that as well. Bush thinks that the voters will be scared of going into Pakistan to wipe out Al Qaeda. I'm not so sure.

The only person who can get us out of Iraq quickly is McCain. McCain can come into office and say that after reviewing the super-duper, top secret, for Dick Cheney's eyes only, intelligence, that we should leave immediately. I doubt he would do that, but he could. And the American people would say OK.

***

Similarly, McCain is the only one who could admit that if we are going to meet our national security obligations properly, and maintain any chance at all of government of the people, by the people and for the people, we need a draft.

The Rumsfeld alternative -- the one that says that we don't need a draft to fight a war -- we merely farm it all out to outside contractors -- means that the core function of government -- the decision to make war or peace -- is no longer in the hands of the people. It is in the hands of the outside contractors.

It is unclear to what extent tactics and military strategy are being dictated by the outside contractors. Maybe Henry Waxman -- who chairs the House committee with the appropriate oversight jurisdiction --- can stop bothering Roger Clemens for a day or two to look into it.

(I digress)

***

Why is Hillary in so much trouble?

Have the times changed on Hillary, and on a lot of us who support her?

A 60-year old Democratic Senator from a major state, a liberal in the current setting, but not really in the historical setting. A professional politician, in both the good and bad sense of the word. A person who has spent a career in public service, paid dues and to whom a lot of favors were owed.

Except that it is a man. Or it is a woman who isn't Hillary Clinton.

Can any person, with that sort of resume, wrest the Democratic nomination from Barack Obama in 2008?

More to follow.

Is Everyone Stealing From B-? (The Surge)

Frank Rich in today's New York Times


"The first was a confirmation of recent White House hints that the long-promised September pivot point for judging the success of the "surge" was inoperative. That deadline had been asserted as recently as April 24 by President Bush, who told Charlie Rose that September was when we'd have "a pretty good feel" whether his policy "made sense." On Sunday General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker each downgraded September to merely a "snapshot" of progress in Iraq. "Snapshot," of course, means "Never mind!"

B After The Fact, letter to The Weekly Standard
February 4, 2007

"If this surge fails, and since it is not even a half-measure, it likely will fail, the President and the Vice President will have no choice except to ask for another surge. And another one. And your position will be increasingly lonely. Because all your friends, the folks at the New York Post, the folks at the Corner, Senator Lieberman, Secretary Gates, General Petraeus, all your friends, keep referring to this surge as "one last chance". They keep talking about requiring the Iraqi government to work with us. They keep saying that our stay in Iraq is not forever.

"Better stop flogging your natural allies. Better stop treating the 50% of the voters who are Democrats as if they belong to another, unpatriotic nation. Better start laying the groundwork for the fact that United States actions in this region should not be dependent upon the actions of any Iraqi government; better start laying the groundwork for the 20, 30, 40, 80 more years of "one last chances" that American Presidents (or whatever Dick Cheney thinks of himself as) are going to need to make this right."